JKool

Jean,

That seems like quite a fair question. I'm certainly on board with the idea that teams that tend to win SBs have great defenses, but why should it be inconceivable that a team with a good (not great) defense and a great offense can't win? Is that actually inconceivable?

SaintFanInATLHELL

It's not that it's inconceivable, just unlikely.

By the way JP and JK, the 49ers in the 80s had a top 10 scoring defense (regular season) every year that they won the SB:

2nd in 1981, 1st in 1984, 8th in 1988, 3rd in 1989. 6th in 1994.

So did the Rams in the 1990s.

In fact the last two years are the exceptions since 1983. The Giants were 17th and the Colts were 23rd. However, the Giants were 1st last postseason and the Colts were 2nd in the postseason their SB winning year. Each were under 17 pts/game and each played 4 games.

BTW last year the Pats were #2 a scant 0.1 ppg behind the Giants in the postseason. And they too were in the top 10 in scoring defense in the regular season.

The Patriots in the SB were the poster boys for the perfect offense. And they got shut down. Any defense that can stop the run and rush the passer with their front 4 are going to win a ton of football games. Just look at Tennesee last year as a perfect example. Their offense was frankly horrific. Yet they won 10 games in arguably the best division currently in the NFL and made the playoffs.

Teams who don't play defense do not win championships.

There's a reason that it's both in my signature and my avatar.

SFIAH

Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO

Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.

Tobias-Reiper

What exactly do you consider "a perfect offense"? And what exactly do you consider an offense getting "shut down"? Sure the Patriots looked mighty impressive destroying the Jets and Redskins and Buffalo in the regular season, but the post season is another beast.

The fact remains that the Patriots offense took the lead with 2 minutes left. So they didn't get shut down.

That is true, but they need to play offense and special teams as well.

RickyInKenner

the 80s were a different era. more teams ran the ball back then. that has a lot to do with it.

JKool

That doesn't seem right. The 9ers are pretty much famous for introducing the "pass first" offenses that we see a lot of today.

RickyInKenner

yeah. the introduced it in the 80s, it blew up in 89/90, it wasn't a pass first league before that, people ran the ball alot.

...lol...

JKool

SFIAH, I bow to your superior knowledge on this point.

Very interesting.

Can you clarify for me how "scoring defense" is measured (again, this is just a question - it is not leading or critical in any way)? I just want to know what I should be looking for (statistically, at least).

Secondarily, I am now interested in this idea of defense winning games. There is one way in which that is obviously false (since with no points, you can't win). So the way it is intended must be more complex - good defense increases you chance of winning. It is not the only thing that matters, but it is an important part. This is what ya'll have in mind, right?

Now, if the Giants and Patriots both have a top 10 scoring defense, and the Patriots had a better offense, the prediction is that the Patriots should win? Thus, having a great defense is a necessary, but not sufficient condition (requirement) for winning the SB. What then are the other factors that seriously increase the probability of winning the SB? Or, another way of thinking about it might be this: winning games (including the big game) requires a complex set of things (one of which is having a great defense).

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

Memnoch_TP

Bow to his knowledge, just not his wisdom. Defense winning championships has NOTHING to do with NOT picking up Shockey. You have to have an offense, and a damn good one is better than an average one or a bad one.

I mean, we could probably trade Drew Brees for some stud defensive player. Wouldn't be too hard to do. I mean, we can get by with Brunell. He is solid, but not spectacular. Get Shaun Alexander and trade Reggie for a stud DB, and we are rolling.

I mean, why not? If upgrading the offense = hurting the defense, downgrading the offense should assure us a Super Bowl victory.

Who would have thought that Drew Brees and Reggie Bush were actually dragging us down. Drew and Reggie are why the defense sucks! Those bloody offensive leeches should be run out of town on a rail.



Have you ever gone to Waffle House? You see all those numbers they scribble on the side of the check? They are magic. No matter how many times you tally up the numbers, they are always different. They just shift around, and the waitress just approximates a total and scribbles it down. This is the phenomenon I have labeled "Waffle House Mathematics".

SFIAH, you have created the strategy and personnel version of "Waffle House Mathematics". Riddle me this, Waffle Master, why didn't we have "The Dome Patrol Part Deaux" when A.B. was behind center? LOL.

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams.

SaintFanInATLHELL

We have a damn good one right now. #1 and #4 in the league in yards the last 2 years. 5th and 12th in scoring.

Now you've finally gotten to the cost argument. Good.

Let's start with Brees. He cost the team nothing but money. And money structured in such a way that if he didn't work out, the team could cut him for virtually no cost, because he had a $12 million option bonus after the first year.

Reggie was drafted. Again all he costs is money.

Let's not even talk about Alexander. Uggg.

In the case of Shockey, upgrading the offense is hurting the defense. Let's remember what the offer on the table to Giants supposedly was: Our 2nd round pick AND Roman Harper. That pick turned into Porter. So if the trigger got pulled then you lose a defensive starter and a player that's likely to be a contributor on the defense and ST.

Now let's look at the Saints defensive acquitions this offseason so far:

Vilma: cost a 4th round pick and possibly a second next year.

Morgan: just money:

Ellis: A 3rd round pick with the swap that turned into Nicks, projected to be a 2nd round talent. WOW! You get a 2nd round offensive player too!

Porter: nothing but the pick

Pressley: nothing but the pick.

So upgrading the defense cost little more than a couple of picks.

More pointedly, absolutely none of these guys have been reported to be anything other than team oriented pros in the locker room.

Maybe you haven't read my analysis of what should be done with the offense. In summary:

1) Resign our free agents. Check.
2) Integrate PT23 into the running game. Remains to be seen.
3) Pay Colston. Remains to be seen.
4) Get Meachum out on the field. Remains to be seen.
5) Continue to shore up the offensive line to keep Brees upright and to bolster the running game. Goodwin at center and the integration of the young OL (Allenman, Bushrod, Nicks) should assure that.
6) Get Stickum for the receivers hands

In short, the offense is already capable of playing at a championship level.

Funny.

Don't get me started about Brooks. There isn't enough space on the Internet for that discussion.

BTW that 2000 Saints defensive squad was 10th in the league in scoring defense. That, along with the 10th best scoring offense, led the Saints to the NFC west crown and the teams first playoff win.

The bottom fell out in 2001. Guess what? The defense dropped to 27th.

My "Waffle House Mathematics" as you put it doesn't change. Successful teams in the NFL play defense. That's the foundation. It's a theme that is recurrent and timeless.

BTW I think it's disingenuous for you to intimate that I want to dismantle the offense to build the defense. I certainly would have had a problem if the Saints wanted to get rid of Brees, Bush, Brown, Colston, or any of the offensive talent to improve the defense. So far the FO has done a brilliant job of rebuilding the defense through judicious trades of draft picks, free agency, and the draft.

But Shockey has deep meaningful costs associated with acquiring him. All I've been pointing out throughout the now dozen pages of this thread is that while he'd certainly improve an already outstanding offense, that the costs in personnel, money, and team chemistry are going to cut, and cut deeply into the fabric of this team.

I'd certainly have no issue with the money if that's all it would cost. I'd even consider rocking the team chemistry boat. But the personnel cost? That's over the top for me.

SFIAH

Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO

Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.

SaintFanInATLHELL

Points per game. Since the number of games is fixed for the regular season, total points scored against the defense also qualifies.

BTW any "superior knowledge" I may have is from researching the topic. The stats are all on Pro-Football-Reference.com - Pro Football Statistics and History at the top of any team's page for a given year. Also I scrounged up the postseason data from the stats section of NFL.com - Official Site of the National Football League

Defense winning championships. The reason is that good defense and running the football function more consistently over a wider variety of conditions. As an example I take you back to 2000, the Baltimore ravens:

2000 Baltimore Ravens Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

If you take a look they only gave up more than 20 points twice all season, and no more than 10 in the playoffs. When you're only giving up 10 points a game, You are always in contention.

Now the problem with teams that shoot it out without a defense is that if the offense sputters at all, then you lose the game. It puts a lot of pressure on an offense to be perfect.

The other aspect, which I've been saying here about the Saints for awhile, is that a defense can give up quite a bit, but if they prevent you from scoring, they've done their job. Put it this way: in a drive an offense needs to succeed on every third down, the defense only needs to succeed on one.

And you missed one final point: the defense can score too, both directly and indirectly. Directly by a turnover return for a TD. Indirectly by a turnover that gives you offense such great field position.
Correct. That's why I have the word virtually in my signature.

Yes. But it's not all that complex. A team has to be able to run the ball effectively and not turn the ball over. Since your defense will virtually always back you up.

But I want to remind you that until that last drive the Patriots defense had done their job. That top 10 defense had their team in a position to win the. That final drive by the Giants was as improbable as they come. Here's a pretty good video of it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7195569314950590387&ei=uP8iSNzsK4amrwK6p-3IAg&hl=en
Without the 4th and 1 conversion and the literally miracle play from Manning to Tyree (which IMHO would result in a sack or incompletion 99% of the time), the game is over with the Giants scoring 10 points. A fanstastic and improbable finish to be sure.

But to finish up, in an ideal NFL world, your team has the best offense, the best defense, and comes away champions. But in virtually every instance in a playoff run, the best defense during that playoff run prevails because it simultaneously takes pressure off your offense while exerting tremendous pressure on opposing offenses.

BTW great offenses and defenses complement one another. That's why the Rams and Cowboys of the 90's and the Niners of the 80's were so successful.

That's where I'd like to see the Saints going in this next window. And our offense is going to be a great contributor to the effort. But IMO it's a near championship caliber offense RIGHT NOW! Brees' surgical precision with the ball almost always works in lieu of that consistent running game that I referred to above. However, like all great offenses the Saints can be shut down by superior defense. Witness the NFC championship game, the Indy game, and the Tennessee game for recent examples.

So that gets us back to Shockey. I know ya'll think I don't think he'll make the offense better. He would. My issue is the potential costs on three fronts: players/picks, dollars, and team chemistry.


Are you willing to give up next year's first for the guy?

What about Harper, your best starting safety?

Are you willing the risk the guy being unhappy with his production?

He's going to want his money. Do you pay him over Smith? Over Colston?

What if Vilma returns to earlier 4-3 and becomes the beast in the middle we think he's going to be. Paying him will impact both the draft pick and potentially Shockey's money.

It's not as clear cut as "He's great! Get him!"

I know it's a lot to read. The Professor is just trying to drop some knowledge.

SFIAH

Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO

Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.